Higher earners should be taxed more?
A lot of threads at the moment have been started about how horrific the 50p income tax rate is. (meaning that for every pound over 150,000 you earn you pay 50p)
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
Please reply, took me ages to right this
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
Please reply, took me ages to right this
(edited 12 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Why was it wrong before?
I'm for a 50p tax rate in principle but not in practice. The more u attempt to tax people, the more likely they are to avoid paying and the more you're (being the Treasury) bound to lose.
A system which requires you to give half of what you earn back in tax is a broken system. Raising the tax for high earners is avoiding the problem, and staying on side with the lower earners, which funnily enough make up the majority of voters.
Another problem is the higher earners are more mobile, they have money and the skills/qualifications to be valuable in other markets, if they decide it doesn't make financial sense to live in the UK you will have a brain drain.
Also, it should be 'took me ages to write this", small but someone will pick up on it, so might as well be me.
Another problem is the higher earners are more mobile, they have money and the skills/qualifications to be valuable in other markets, if they decide it doesn't make financial sense to live in the UK you will have a brain drain.
Also, it should be 'took me ages to write this", small but someone will pick up on it, so might as well be me.
Yes, the super rich will simply avoid the tax. A higher tax rate would affect those earning just over £150k. If someone told you "I'll give you 30% more money, if you go and live in a prettier country", you would probably uproot if your income was not dependent on living in the UK. Also, your money goes further in these countries 
Google the "laffer curve" it will explain the problem with just increasing taxes further, but i agree that taxing to correct the huge problems with the distributions of income.
I would like to say that if i was richer when I'm older i would like to help make the UK a better place for medium and low income earners with worse living standards.
I would like to say that if i was richer when I'm older i would like to help make the UK a better place for medium and low income earners with worse living standards.
I understand the criticism that higher earners will leave if taxes are high.
However for the majority of people I know, just simply being offered more money is not a reason to leave a country for a new job.
1) The majority of high earners have established families, children already in schools and friends and family who they won't want to be completely removed from
2) Some people like to live in England. For example footballers are offered large contracts to play at different clubs in other countries all the time, but either due to love of the country or homesickness .
Basically just because you can earn more money does not mean that you will leave the country
However for the majority of people I know, just simply being offered more money is not a reason to leave a country for a new job.
1) The majority of high earners have established families, children already in schools and friends and family who they won't want to be completely removed from
2) Some people like to live in England. For example footballers are offered large contracts to play at different clubs in other countries all the time, but either due to love of the country or homesickness .
Basically just because you can earn more money does not mean that you will leave the country
Original post by gus120
A lot of threads at the moment have been started about how horrific the 50p income tax rate is. (meaning that for every pound over 150,000 you earn you pay 50p)
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
Alternatively, lower earners are being sustained by high earners. Without the work of the upper management Argos' 51,000 employees would not have jobs. It's not either or, they are both mutually beneficial to each other, so why do you propose that we should hammer the rich to give the poor an easy life?
Original post by gus120
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
Well since there is no evidence to support that theory at all, I'm going to have to say no. Basically we can either have a society where some are poor and some are really rich, or your proposal which is for everyone to be equally poor.
And why, prey tell, would foreign investors be attracted to a country that clearly does not appreciate the creation of wealth?
Original post by gus120
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Money saved is not money wasted you know. The rich tend to invest their money which is even better for the economy than consumption because it creates sustainable growth.
Original post by gus120
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
I'm all for social welfare, but for those who genuinely need it. The idea that the poor have some god given right to the wealth of the rich is not one I believe in. If you work had, make it in life and become rich, you should keep that money, or atleast the majority of that money, because you have deserved it.
We should concentrate on tax avoidance first.
Taxing to resitribute income could lower productivity and growth:
1. There is less incentive to work as over half of your earnings is taken (if you add NI contributions)
2. The mugs claiming JSA who don't intend on getting a job have even less motivation to get one, meaning less productive workforce
3. As someone already said, the Laffer curve shows the relationship between tax rate and tax revenue. The initial pattern is for tax revene to go up. After a certain rate of tax, revenue goes down due to disincentive to work, tax evasion, avoidance or putting money in accounts which have no tax (Switzerland).
1. There is less incentive to work as over half of your earnings is taken (if you add NI contributions)
2. The mugs claiming JSA who don't intend on getting a job have even less motivation to get one, meaning less productive workforce
3. As someone already said, the Laffer curve shows the relationship between tax rate and tax revenue. The initial pattern is for tax revene to go up. After a certain rate of tax, revenue goes down due to disincentive to work, tax evasion, avoidance or putting money in accounts which have no tax (Switzerland).
Original post by gus120
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
The argos boss ensures that the business works smoothly and "steers the ship" to make the business viable. The upper management ensures that distribution is met, wages are paid, books are balanced etc... therefore without the "rich, highly skilled people" the business would collapse.
Also there's a non sequitor, increased wages does not necessarily mean increased sales.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
As an extreme example, in somalia everyone is equally as poor and its pretty appalling there. Furthermore, a "nice" Britain does not mean more foreign investment (look as Dubai, not a "nice" place).
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Higher earners will move, taking their skills and money with them. My friends dad is a very successful solicitor, he lives half the year in Geneva.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
All this higher rate of tax proves is that the system at the moment is rubbish, too many middle managers due to the inefficent state system (my dad is a doctor in the NHS).
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
The argos boss ensures that the business works smoothly and "steers the ship" to make the business viable. The upper management ensures that distribution is met, wages are paid, books are balanced etc... therefore without the "rich, highly skilled people" the business would collapse.
Also there's a non sequitor, increased wages does not necessarily mean increased sales.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
As an extreme example, in somalia everyone is equally as poor and its pretty appalling there. Furthermore, a "nice" Britain does not mean more foreign investment (look as Dubai, not a "nice" place).
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Higher earners will move, taking their skills and money with them. My friends dad is a very successful solicitor, he lives half the year in Geneva.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
All this higher rate of tax proves is that the system at the moment is rubbish, too many middle managers due to the inefficent state system (my dad is a doctor in the NHS).
I hope this shows up properly
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by gus120
A lot of threads at the moment have been started about how horrific the 50p income tax rate is. (meaning that for every pound over 150,000 you earn you pay 50p)
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
People who command higher salaries are more valuable to the organisation they work for. Raising the tax would undermine their importance. Being "partly paid by lower earners" is subjective. Salaries are part of a firm's running costs, so it is dependent on revenue, subsidies and investment rather than lower earners contributions, which I'm sure is not as significant contributor.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
-"Nicer place to live". Redistributing income would mean someone's hard earned money is in someone's hands. When you haven't worked for something, you appreciate it less, so the money may not be used efficiently anyway (eg. JSA claimers boozing money away. The resentment you talk of would be replaced by these high earners resenting people who they view to be "sponging off" their money.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Interest rates were lowered to 0.5% to boost and encourage spending. Although high earners are more likely to save, they still arguably spend more in monetary terms than lower earners. High earners are main contributors to consumer spending. By taxing them, their consumption goes down.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
Rather than trying to redistribute, why not address the core of this problem which would be more investment in education and training. Sure it would take time to see effect, but a higher tax rate only sugarcoats the reason to why there is inequality. As for soldiers and social workers, I'm sure they were well informed of the nature of their work before opting for such a career plan
Please reply, took me ages to right this
Am I the only one for it?
My reasons being
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
People who command higher salaries are more valuable to the organisation they work for. Raising the tax would undermine their importance. Being "partly paid by lower earners" is subjective. Salaries are part of a firm's running costs, so it is dependent on revenue, subsidies and investment rather than lower earners contributions, which I'm sure is not as significant contributor.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
-"Nicer place to live". Redistributing income would mean someone's hard earned money is in someone's hands. When you haven't worked for something, you appreciate it less, so the money may not be used efficiently anyway (eg. JSA claimers boozing money away. The resentment you talk of would be replaced by these high earners resenting people who they view to be "sponging off" their money.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Interest rates were lowered to 0.5% to boost and encourage spending. Although high earners are more likely to save, they still arguably spend more in monetary terms than lower earners. High earners are main contributors to consumer spending. By taxing them, their consumption goes down.
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
Rather than trying to redistribute, why not address the core of this problem which would be more investment in education and training. Sure it would take time to see effect, but a higher tax rate only sugarcoats the reason to why there is inequality. As for soldiers and social workers, I'm sure they were well informed of the nature of their work before opting for such a career plan
Please reply, took me ages to right this
See evaluative comments
Money never sits still. Although the higher earners may save their money, what do you think this entails? It entails putting that money into an investment which will generate them a return. This will hire more people. You also have to look at this not in financial terms but in terms of time. Why should anyone have to work more than half their week for other people? The people who benefit and use the services the most contribute the least to its maintenance and upkeep. Plus you have to factor in that the higher taxes increase the incentive is to find and utilise loopholes to legally avoid tax... If you earn half a million a year and you are being taxed around 200k, that allows you to spend £150k on accountants to save you £50k, and you don't have to spend anywhere near that amount on accountants to save that money.
(edited 12 years ago)
You're forgetting national insurance. We tax these people to the hilt already, don't worry about it.
To the people quoting the Laffer curve, the concept has been around for decades but is junk economics, the guy assumed a distribution which hasn't been proven when comparing low and high taxing countries. In principle, yes there is a threshold at which revenue will decline, but it's not necessarily 50%, although it is probably true that such a high rate leads to greater tax avoidance/evasion.
To answer the OP's question, I think the 50% tax rate is a bad idea as it is punitive towards the wealthy but not the genuinely rich, who avoid (or evade) tax to a greater extent as a result. I would raise the threshold for 40% taxation to reflect inflation over the past few years, and simplify the tax system itself - which is full of loopholes - in order to better collect tax which is being avoided by corporations.
To answer the OP's question, I think the 50% tax rate is a bad idea as it is punitive towards the wealthy but not the genuinely rich, who avoid (or evade) tax to a greater extent as a result. I would raise the threshold for 40% taxation to reflect inflation over the past few years, and simplify the tax system itself - which is full of loopholes - in order to better collect tax which is being avoided by corporations.
Original post by gus120
A lot of threads at the moment have been started about how horrific the 50p income tax rate is. (meaning that for every pound over 150,000 you earn you pay 50p)
Am I the only one for it?
Am I the only one for it?
Plenty of plebs think just like you.
Original post by gus120
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
1) High earners are being sustained by lower earners. For example the Argos boss' salary is being paid partly by lower earners, and increased money for lower earners may mean an increase in sales in his company and therefore more money for him, therefore a chain.
No you plebian. He is paid the salary he is because it is what shareholders deem he is worth for implementing and managing an efficient operation.
Giving more to the plebs he hires does not bring more sales to his company. Heard of employee discount?
Original post by gus120
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
2) A lower division of income will mean that the UK is a nicer place to live. As their will be less class divide and resentment. Which could possibly mean a reduction in crime and less anti social behaviour. A nicer Britain is in everyone's interest and could increase foreign investment.
You surely can't be that dumb to think that?
Original post by gus120
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
3) Taxes for higher earners is good for the economy as higher earners have a lower propensity to consume and therefore will save rather than spend (as a percentage of their income) whilst lower earners have a higher propensity to consume and therefore will spend more as a percentage of their income. Increased consumption will increase GDP and therefore will hopefully help economic growth, which highly advantageous to high earners.
Please keep your pleb spending habits to yourself.
Either you have no understanding of economics and business or you're just so far out of touch with reality.
Original post by gus120
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
4) Most importantly, the social benefits, the majority of low earners are low earners either because of less opportunities at childhood (some state schools are much worse than others) or because of choice (social workers get **** money, but choose to help people regardless). Some of the people on TSR believe all low earners are lazy or incompetent and don't deserve to receive any aid from government, ( I don't think you can call a soldier lazy, but they still receive child benefit, something some TSR members believe should not be given)
Hogwash again... people are poor because they choose to be poor, if you are poor you can do something about it.
Original post by gus120
Please reply, took me ages to right this
Please reply, took me ages to right this
Hardly surprising.
Original post by gus120
High earners are being sustained by lower earners.
High earners are being sustained by lower earners.
High earners pay for the benefits that most low earners gain as well as making up the difference for education and health (that they often don't use anyway) etc.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Help needed: Economics A-level question
- Is 23000/year take home salary good?
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- Maintenance Loans with student accomodation
- Do bonuses get taxed at 20% or 40%?
- Architecture degree or apprenticeship??
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Paye tax
- Does applying for higher maintenance loan delay tuition fees if complications happen
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Why are rents so high
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- Any hope for young buyers?
- LSBU vs Middlesex Uni for Mental Health nursing
- Should I pay tax as a 17 year old with a part time job?
- Post Your Economics Question Here
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 2 (7136/2) -22th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Twitch affiliate taxes as a 17 year old.
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
